Results 1 to 2 of 2

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.

Thread: Did Apple Violate Magnuson-Moss over iPhone Unlocks?

  1. #1
    Livin the iPhone Life SundayDuffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Northern California
    Thanked 181 Times in 164 Posts

    Default Did Apple Violate Magnuson-Moss over iPhone Unlocks?
    Written by Christopher Price
    Monday, 24 September 2007

    Apple has today stated that unlocking the iPhone is an official warranty violation. Further, they have stated that future iPhone firmware updates may damage unlocked iPhones. However, Apple may have violated an important federal warranty law in doing so.

    As this article has spread, many are not reading the article, and are drawing implications we simply did not make in our analysis. For example, many on other web sites are arguing that Magnuson-Moss only applies to full warranties, and thus is not relevant to this situation. While we (clearly in the article below) made the distinction, Apple is required under Magnuson-Moss to clearly explain to consumers what limitations are present in the Limited Warranty.

    We further analyzed that Apple did not clearly nor explicitly restrict SIM Unlocks in their limited warranty, and we suggest everyone read the entire article before drawing any false conclusions about what has been said in the article.

    The newcomer to the wireless industry has consistently taken a closed policy to iPhone. AT&T, which generally provides SIM unlock codes to customers that have completed a certain portion of the contract, is saying that they are unable to with iPhone. They cite Apple as being unwilling to provide them with such codes. Apple also refuses to release a Software Development Kit (SDK) to enable developers to write software for the embedded version of Mac OS X inside of iPhone.

    However, today's decision may put Apple in legal trouble. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act appears to reason that Apple cannot void a warranty for a product with third-party enhancements or modifications to their product. The only exception to this rule is if Apple can determine that the modification or enhancement is responsible damaging the product in question. While Apple has the opportunity to make further exemptions, we will explain how the exemptions Apple has made do not fully apply to this case.

    The legal question is three-fold here: Is the SIM Unlock process that has become mainstream (anySIM/iUnlock, available from our iPhone encyclopedia entry) doing damage to iPhone? And, also, is Apple designing future software updates to do damage to iPhone when said SIM Unlock code is present? Finally, is Apple's limited warranty setup to prohibit such unlocks, as defined by federal law and the specific terms of the limited warranty itself? Unfortunately, the answers lie in complex legal and technical terms.

    First, the status of SIM unlocks in and of themselves. Generally, phone manufacturers consider a phone successfully unlocked to maintain its warranty. A phone that has been unsuccessfully unlocked may lose its warranty if the phone cannot be repaired by re-flashing its firmware.

    The SIM unlock process for iPhone relies on making a modification to Apple's baseband firmware. The baseband firmware is essentially the software that exists on the radio itself. It is independent of the embedded Mac OS X installation. While this is an unorthodox way of unlocking a phone, it appears to be the only viable software unlock solution; there is no evidence that Apple has implemented a way of entering a SIM Unlock code, similar to entering a PUK code. Apple left implementers with the only option of patching the firmware.

    Does this do damage to iPhone? There is no evidence that it does. The part of the baseband that is modified only controls SIM unlocks. For Apple to void the warranty, they would have to provide clear technical evidence and documentation... something Apple has not yet provided. Until they do, this appears to be an initial violation of Magnuson-Moss. It's no different from putting a third-party part in a car that does not damage or inhibit any other part of the car. Furthermore, it is valid and has been ruled as not a DMCA violation by the U.S. Copyright Office, so there is no tainted hand argument either.

    Apple does, however, have one card in their hand... they can require users that have SIM unlocked their iPhone, to re-lock them. The baseband firmware can be re-flashed and re-locked to AT&T's network. However, Apple is currently holding that any iPhone that has ever been attempted to unlocked has a voided warranty. In short, if Apple changes that position to simply requiring that the iPhone be re-locked to AT&T, they are back in compliance with the law.

    The second question of updates from Apple damaging unlocked iPhones, is much more complicated. If an update can, unintentionally, do damage, is again a question Apple must answer before rendering iPhone's warranty void. And, Apple is legally required to prove it... at least on the civil grounds of more-likely-than-not. If Apple will release an update that intentionally detects the baseband modification, and then does damage iPhones that have it is more simple to answer; they could, but it's illegal for them to do so. Magnuson-Moss prevents Apple from intentionally voiding the warranty based on the presence of a modification. Extrapolating from that, it also prevents them from damaging other components of iPhone (such as Boot ROM or baseband components) simply because the modification has been detected (which an updater can detect by checksumming the baseband).

    It is questionable if Apple can simply word in their warranty agreement that SIM unlocks are a voiding condition. This would be necessary for Apple to legally void warranties based on a SIM unlock, and under Magnuson-Moss, any term of iPhone's warranty that does so must be explicit and easy for the consumer to understand. Magnuson-Moss is vague on the implications of such a situation. It would be similar to stating that using a third-party ink jet cartridge voids the warranty of a printer. While Apple makes the statement of "a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple..." voids the warranty, SIM unlock processes that are free and openly sourced, are not salient products, nor are they traditionally defined as a part. Furthermore, the SIM unlock can be reversed, and thus is not a permanent modification... in other words, Apple can remove it easily. Furthermore, any iPhones unlocked before said wording would still be entitled to warranty care... and Apple has no way of detecting exactly when an iPhone was unlocked.

    The conclusion here is simple: Apple has, at least in a minor and reversible way, violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Apple should take action to correct their policy, and require that iPhone customers seeking warranty service, return their iPhone's to locked condition. Apple could also release a software tool that aides in this process, though legally they are not required to... it would make the job of the Genius Bar easier to have such a tool in-house.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to SundayDuffer For This Useful Post:

    jedinight (2007-09-28)

  3. #2
    Retired Moderator jedinight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    c.s. texas
    Thanked 113 Times in 89 Posts

    nice post ....but i think we would have to form an iphone union to get apple on our side

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts